Whilst the majority of discussion within Chapter 2 was directed towards the instability of placements for LACYP, there was little reference to the placement distance from schools; other than the requirement at a public policy level (McLeroy et al., 1988) for local authorities (where possible) to keep children in the same school despite any placement changes (see Children and Young Persons Act 2008, section 3.4.13). Gilligan (2013) argues that not all activities for LACYP should be linked to school, in order to prevent a loss in these activities in the event of a change in a young person’s placement. Respondent accounts were consistent with Gilligan’s argument, with the data revealing that where LACYP were placed had a major influence on whether they participated in school sport. For example, it was noted by Robert Knight, the VSH from Bucktonshire, that “staying after school, depending on travel back, how far they have to travel back is a big issue”. The interview extract below with Heather Roberts, a VSH in the north of England, also evidences this:
When you’re moving into new foster placements, you know, to be able to access not the PE lessons, but clubs and things like that. Somebody’s got to take on board what needs to happen for that like transport, foster carers being able to pick up, taxis organising who’s going to pay for them, who’s going to provide the PE kit and things like that.
The location of a LACYP’s placement as affecting their engagement in after-school activities such as school sport, was a shared concern among the local authority respondents; as articulated by Sandra Scott, a VSH from a local authority in the Midlands:
CW: What would you say are the biggest challenges [for looked-after children in accessing PE and school sport]?
Sandra: I think it can be where their placement is. So, if their placement is not in the local area and they’ve got to be taxied back or picked up at certain times that can sometimes prevent them taking part, particularly in after school activities.
Although it appears that placement moves are not always accommodating in terms of their proximity to schools, transport issues have been acknowledged and addressed in some cases. In the example below, a mainstream school within the north-east region has recognised and attempted to overcome this barrier for LACYP, as the local authority’s VSH explained:
I know one school for example that have a minibus, two or three minibuses, that go after school for those who stay on for extra activities. If you’re in a rural community and you haven’t got someone who can pick you up or take you home, then you can’t continue with that, so if there’s specific arrangements put in place that’s helpful or any arrangement to get someone back in that sort of way. So that’s just one small thing that comes immediately to mind.
Likewise, Heather Roberts identified an issue regarding transport in her role as VSH, and the kinds of provisions Whippinghamshire were putting in place to overcome this:
As part of our PEPs, we will always talk about access to after-school clubs, and if a foster carer can’t pick them up then can we have a taxi funded or is there somebody else. Or you know, we always work through that, because there is a definite barrier because of the distance involved sometimes between schools and placements for just normal sort of access do you know what I mean.
While these comments highlight the impact of logistics on LACYP’s access to extra- curricular sport, these examples suggest that PESS may not be the only element in play here with regards to their wider educational experiences. Indeed, the issue of location/transport can affect access to education more broadly and other extra-curricular activities occurring after school. There are also variations in who addresses this barrier; the school or the local authority. The survey data from the PE teachers revealed that 63% believed there were barriers/issues concerning LACYP’s experiences of PESS, with travel arrangements for extra-curricular activities being noted as problematic. Similar findings
were also found in the local authority professionals survey. For example, an Educational Development Officer from a local authority in the West Midlands noted: “LAC often rely on transport arrangements to support their travel to and from school, and this can prove to be a barrier.” This point was further explored during the interviews with local authority professionals and PE teachers. In the following extract, David Andrews of Lushington Secondary School, explains this further:
CW: Are you aware of any issues or barriers then that looked-after children face?
David Andrews: Extra-curricular is a completely different kettle of fish, there’s massive barriers there. Depending if they have much further to travel, sometimes they’ll have much further to travel and it’s a bus, it’s a taxi, it’s picked up, so after-school sport doesn’t go on as much.
CW: So these issues and barriers you mention, what do you think is needed to address these do you think?
David Andrews: It’s about keeping kids close to the school that they’re in, keeping them well within catchment so that the travel arrangement can be made easily so they can walk, they can cycle or foster carers can pick them up. As opposed to, I know individuals who live about 40 miles away, 30 to 40 miles it’s not possible for students to stay after school. That’s the biggest barrier.
This presents tension at the institutional level between maintaining school stability by placing LACYP 40 miles away (impacting on access to extracurricular activities and friendship groups) and the suggestion that these decisions should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than assuming that school stability should always be centralised (see Mannay et al., 2015). What is interesting to note is that, contrary to the views of teachers and local authority professionals, none of the LACYP interviewed specifically mentioned the location of their placements or transport concerns as having an impact on their PESS
experiences. Differences between adults and LACYP in the prioritizing of key issues has also been found in other research exploring LACYP’s experiences (see, Holland, 2009). That is not to say that transport or location are not issues for other LACYP, it may simply be that the respondents in this study lived within a close enough proximity to their schools or considered other factors as more influential such as the disruption of moving. Nonetheless, these examples illustrate the key role that the corporate parent (local authority) plays in shaping LACYP’s PESS experiences in relation to accessibility issues.
Support from outside the educational setting is something that all children rely upon for engagement within education and extra-curricular activities and is typically provided by parents/family for those who reside with their birth families (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003). For LACYP, the responsibility lies with the corporate parent. By law, all LACYP in England have corporate parents (See Chapter 3, section 3.4.25: Children and Social Work Act, 2017). Corporate parents are responsible for providing the best possible care, aspirations and safeguarding of LACYP (Dixon et al., 2015). This includes ensuring that these young people are given the same opportunity as their peers to participate in extra- curricular activities such as school sport (DfES, 2007). Foster carers also have an important role to play, being responsible for providing the support they may otherwise lack. As part of the Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards, foster carers are required to promote and value education to help their foster child(ren) achieve their full potential and prepare them for adulthood (DfE, 2011) (see Chapter 3, section 3.4.19). The importance of the foster carer in the promotion of education and additional activities for LACYP has been noted in previous studies (Jackson et al., 2011; Gibson and Edwards, 2015). In terms of their PESS experiences, foster carers can be considered to play an important role in supporting travel arrangements. Therefore, although placement location (or rather transportation issues) as an influencer of LACYP’s experiences of PESS appears to sit more within the institutional level of their social ecology, it can also be influenced at an interpersonal level by the relationship with the foster carer. The distance of a LACYP placement in relation to their school may prove to be more significant if, in fact, it is their school that changes, rather than their placement. In this respect, research has shown that for some LACYP, their educational trajectory can be problematic and so the next sub- theme reveals the impact of alternative educational provision on LACYP’s PESS experiences.